The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, January 2, 2015

While anti-Korean speeches and rallies by the Japanese group
“Zaitokukai” are being used as the pretext to terrorize Japan into
changing its policies and infringing on citizens' constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms, the UN’s anti-free speech scheming has far larger
aims.

Under the guise of advancing what the United Nations refers to as
“human rights,” the dictator-dominated global body is waging a
full-blown assault on free-speech rights by pressuring governments to
criminalize so-called “hate speech.” Indeed, working alongside radical
government-funded activist groups and anti-liberty politicians around
the world, the UN and other totalitarian-minded forces have now reached
the point where they openly claim that what they call “international
law” actually requires governments to ban speech and
organizations they disapprove of. Critics, though, are fighting back in
an effort to protect freedom of speech — among the most fundamental of
all real rights.

While Americans’ God-given right to speak freely is firmly enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the UN and its hordes of
“human rights” bureaucrats are currently terrorizing and bullying the
people of Japan — among others — in an effort to drastically curtail
speech rights. Pointing to a tiny group of anti-Korean activists holding
demonstrations in Japan, politicians and self-styled promoters of
“human rights” have also joined the UN in its Soviet-inspired crusade to
ban free expression. The Japanese Constitution, however, like the
American one, includes strong protections for freedom of speech. Still,
that has not stopped the UN from seeking to impose its radical speech
restrictions on Japan anyway.

At least two separate UN outfits, the dictator-dominated “Human Rights Commission”
and the UN “Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,”
have condemned Japan so far this year for failing to criminalize free
speech while demanding immediate bans. The UN racial committee even
released a report calling on Japanese politicians to overthrow the
nation’s Constitution and take “appropriate steps to revise its
legislation” by criminalizing and punishing speech, rallies, and groups
considered “hateful.” The outfit also demanded a "comprehensive law
prohibiting racial discrimination."

The "human rights" committee, meanwhile, demanded that Japanese
authorities “prohibit all propaganda advocating racial superiority or
hatred that incites to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Even
speech on the Internet is in the UN's "human rights" crosshairs for regulation and prohibition.
While anti-Korean speeches and rallies by the Japanese group
“Zaitokukai” are being used as the pretext to terrorize Japan into
changing its policies and infringing on citizens' constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms, the UN’s anti-free speech scheming has far larger
aims.

Incredibly, despite constitutional protections for free speech and
the lack of any statute even purporting to criminalize free expression,
Japanese courts have actually been relying on UN agreements to punish
alleged “hate” speakers. Last summer, the high court in Osaka upheld a
previous ruling against the Zaitokukai organization for its speeches and
rallies outside of a North Korean propaganda "school" in Kyoto that
brainwashes children into worshipping mass-murdering North Korean
dictator Kim Jong-un. The group was ordered to pay more than $100,000
for its supposed hate speech — again, despite the Constitution’s
protections for free speech and the lack of a “hate speech” statute in
Japan.

Also alarming to critics is that top members of the Japanese
political class are already plotting to use “hate speech” laws to
criminalize criticism of government and politicians. According to a
recent report in the Economist magazine, revisionist politician Sanae
Takaichi said “hate-speech” laws should be used to stop people from
protesting government actions outside of Parliament. Lawmakers must be
free to work “without any fear of criticism,” she explained, sending
shivers down the spines of free-speech advocates. Apparently the
totalitarian sentiment is widespread among the political class, though
Japan’s justice minister has so far resisted UN calls to pursue “hate
speech” schemes. Much of the UN’s lobbying against freedom of speech in Japan, as in
other nations, revolves around the “International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” and similar planetary
thought-police regimes. The radical UN agreement, which took effect in
1969 but was not ratified by Japanese authorities until the 1990s,
purports to criminalize “discriminatory expression.” Under the global
body’s anti-free-speech regime, national governments are supposedly
“required” to ban all speech that might justify or promote racial
hatred, hostility, or discrimination — and punish the perpetrators.

Then UN “Human Rights” Czar Navi Pillay, a South African who was widely ridiculed after her half-baked attacks on the United States
in recent years, also offered some chilling insight into the
dictator-dominated global body’s views on liberty. “Defining the line
that separates protected from unprotected speech is ultimately a
decision that is best made after a thorough assessment of the
circumstances of each case,” she argued. In other words, any time
somebody speaks, he or she must wonder whether their speech might run
afoul of dubious UN notions of “hate speech” — to be decided after the
fact.

Of course, the issue at hand is not really “hate speech.” Threats and
incitement to violence are already crimes in Japan and virtually the
entire civilized world, so no new statutes are needed to rein in the
excesses of racist hatemongers. Instead, the real issues include freedom
of speech, freedom of the press, real rights, national sovereignty,
constitutional governance, and self-government. While racist speech is
certainly ignorant, tasteless, and collectivist, using laws to
criminalize it is not only futile — as has been shown on countless
occasions — but extraordinarily dangerous. Instead, the free marketplace
of ideas is the best way to counter hatemongering.

Even the notion of “hate speech,” though, has long been used to
persecute innocent people for their political and religious beliefs.
Across much of Europe, for instance, pastors and street preachers are regularly arrested and jailed
for referring to homosexual activity as a sin. In Sweden, under the
guise of waging war on “hate speech,” the Justice Ministry even
investigated the Holy Bible. Meanwhile, at the global level, a broad
coalition of Islamic dictators is seeking to criminalize criticism of
Islam, its prophet, and the Quran worldwide using UN agreements.

The tyrannical origin of hate-speech laws, meanwhile, was highlighted
in detail in a 2011 report by the respected Hoover Institution,
exposing the origins of the machinations within the mass-murdering
regime ruling the Soviet Union. “The introduction of hate-speech
prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the
Soviet Union and allies,” the paper on the “sordid origin of hate-speech laws”
explained. “Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries
sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.” Acceptance of
hate-speech schemes by what remains of the free world, the report added,
could have “devastating consequences for the preservation of free
speech.”

The UN, composed largely of brutal autocracies of various varieties,
has also made its views on free speech rights perfectly clear. Just
consider two examples documented by The New American in 2014.
This summer, the head of a powerful UN agency, Director General Francis
Gurry with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), threatened a journalist with criminal prosecution
— for the "crime" of reporting on official documents alleging that he
unlawfully sent U.S. technology to brutal dictators, retaliated against
whistleblowers, and was involved in widespread corruption. More
recently, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) physically removed the public and the media from a taxpayer-funded meeting in Moscow during which it decided to demand much higher global tobacco taxes.

Even the whole UN notion of “human rights” should be viewed for what
it is: a tool of tyrants to attack the real rights that have underpinned
Western traditions since the Magna Carta. Indeed, unbeknownst to
average Americans and humanity as a whole, the UN means something very
different when it discusses “human rights” than, say, the unalienable,
God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In the American
system, rights such as self-defense, free speech, religious liberty,
trial by jury, privacy, and property ownership are endowed by the
Creator upon every individual — a truth that America’s Founding Fathers
viewed as “self-evident.”

Because individuals’ human rights come from God, then, they cannot be
legitimately infringed upon by any government. In fact, according to
the Founders, government was instituted for the express purpose of
protecting those God-given rights from infringement. “We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” explains the
American Declaration of Independence, which formally gave birth to the
independent United States of America. “That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men.”

Under the UN’s version of “human rights,” however, “rights” are
purportedly defined and granted to people by governments, dictators,
treaties, and international organizations. Even more troubling, perhaps,
is that they can be restricted or abolished by government at will under
virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”
openly admits. Consider Article 29 of the declaration, which claims
that the pseudo-rights can be limited “by law” under the guise of
everything from “public order” to “the general welfare.”

Separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the
community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” For
perspective, that would be like the First Amendment saying Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech is
being used to criticize Congress or otherwise makes Congress unhappy.
Obviously, the two views on human rights are incompatible at a basic
level. The two visions are actually almost opposites — unalienable
God-given rights versus revocable government-granted privileges.

More evidence of how the UN views “human rights” can be found with a
brief examination of the composition of its “Human Rights Council,” the
highest “authority” within the UN system on the issue. In November of
2013, the outfit selected the most barbaric regimes on the planet to sit on the body.
Among the mass-murdering regimes selected to sit on the UN’s
self-styled “human rights” entity, for example, were the communist
dictatorships enslaving the people of China, Cuba, and Vietnam. The
socialist regime in Namibia was selected for the council, too, joining
the brutal socialist autocracy ruling Venezuela that recently disarmed
law-abiding citizens with UN help.

Also appointed were the hardline Islamist tyrants ruling over Algeria
and Saudi Arabia, which considers converting to Christianity a capital
offense and which continues to publicly behead “apostates” and others,
ISIS-style. If the genocidal mass-murdering maniac ruling Sudan had not
withdrawn his bid in the face of a global outcry, his seat on the council was all but assured.
Ironically, the current UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” comes
from Jordan, where converting to Christianity is a crime. Less than a
decade ago, the UN Commission on Human Rights, which preceded the
council, was actually chaired by none other than brutal Libyan dictator
Moammar Gadhafi.

Rather than entertaining the outlandish and totalitarian demands of
the dictators club against the free world, civilized nations and free
peoples should force their governments to defund and withdraw from the
UN. Only then will the non-stop UN attacks on freedom and real rights
come to an end. Until then, though, humanity must firmly oppose the UN’s
autocratic scheming at every turn — lest the people’s true unalienable
rights be usurped and trampled under the guise of bogus “human rights.”

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at

Jerusalem - The decision by the Palestinian Authority to sign the
Rome Statute, a step towards joining the International Criminal Court
(ICC), follows more than a decade of intense lobbying and propaganda
campaigns by NGOs (non-governmental organizations). These groups promote
legal warfare, or “lawfare,” against Israel, according to
Jerusalem-based research institute NGO Monitor.

“Attempting to litigate the highly charged Arab-Israeli conflict in
the ICC could spell the end of the court, and the NGOs and their
European funders will be responsible,” said Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor
Legal Advisor. “While the Palestinian leadership and the NGOs may get
some short-lived propaganda victories in their political war, they may
soon find they got more than they bargained for.”

NGO Monitor notes that European governments are major funders of the
NGOs involved in these campaigns, often through secretive and
irresponsible processes that lack transparency and accountability.
Palestinian Center for Human Rights is funded by the EU, Norway,
Ireland; Al Haq receives funding from Ireland, Belgium, Spain, and
Norway; and FIDH is funded by France, EU, Sweden, Norway, and Ireland.
Diakonia, a Swedish church-based NGO, is primarily funded by the Swedish
government.

One of the main mechanisms for supporting legal warfare against Israel is the Secretariat,
a joint funding framework of Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and
Switzerland. Managed by the Institute of Law at Birzeit University, the
Secretariat has supported NGOs’ legal campaigns in accordance with the
Palestinian political narrative and goals.

“Ironically, in order to convince governments to support the ICC, Human Rights Watch has argued
for years that the court would never be exploited for political
maneuvers by the Palestinians.” continued Ms. Herzberg. “Once again,
Human Rights Watch has been proven wrong.”

The campaign to prosecute Israeli officials at the ICC is bolstered by Israeli NGOs, such as Adalah and Yesh Din,
which promote the falsehood that the Israeli justice system lacks due
process in order to justify efforts for politicized international “war
crimes” cases. Both are funded by European governments and the New Israel Fund (NIF).

Ms. Herzberg concluded, “Given that the Palestinians have committed
tens of thousands of war crimes against Israeli civilians, they may find
themselves facing prosecution not only for war crimes but crimes
against humanity and genocide.”

Notes:
For more information on NGO legal warfare against Israel, including the ICC campaign, see:

Turkey is an increasingly problematic
and potentially hostile state,
but for now it is a de jure American ally. [And] while
some Sunni regimes (and terror groups) harbor broad anti-Western
political ambitions -- Iran’s Shia regime is explicitly theocratic and apocalyptic.

The mainstream media is out to bolster the president’s coming “détente” with Iran as roughly outlined in his recent interview with NPR. But
typical of Obama’s excursions off-teleprompter, the meandering
multi-topic NPR interview hardly presents an analysis of American
relations with Iran, as opposed to Obama’s penchants for bragging and
wishful thinking, (e.g., outwitting the Iranian mullahs by agreeing with
his interviewer that he is going to outwit them.) A day before the NPR
interview the Washington Post ran a headline touting the blooming alliance between
United States and Iran in Iraq. But I suspect the true rationale and
outlines of Obama’s “grand bargain” with Iran are better explicated in a piece in the current Atlantic by Robert Kaplan, which serendipitously just arrived in my mailbox.

The Kaplan article is particularly interesting and worth analyzing in detail. While not quite in the same league as his Atlantic colleague
Jeffrey Goldberg as a reliable Obama mouthpiece, it is still probably
safe to assume that Kaplan’s piece presents the Obama administration
blueprint for a coming reconciliation with Iran. Kaplan’s article even
reads a lot like an Obama speech: Assertions of foreign-policy realism,
invocations of inevitability, comparisons to admired former presidents,
specious references to history, grand gestures, faulty stratagems,
throwing friends and allies under various busses, and damning Israel
with faint praise.

The
centerpiece of the argument appears to be that Obama’s Asian pivot (so
far as ineffectual if not yet quite as disastrous as his other
initiatives) is necessary, but conditional on rapprochement with Iran.
In this view, the standoff with Iran prevents application of American
power in the “Indo-Pacific” though why that is, beyond the marginal
reallocation of some naval resources, is not explicated (Kaplan mentions
Indian Ocean seaports but not American naval strategy.) Rather, as
Obama has intimated, restoring relations with Iran would supposedly
create a kind of grand strategic realignment comparable to Nixon’s
opening to China in the early seventies. In the midst of the Cold War,
that initiative served American interests vis a vis the
Soviets, and made it easier for the United States to terminate our
involvement in Vietnam, albeit with catastrophic results for many
Southeast Asian nations.

The
pitch on Iran is that a similar détente would balance American
interests as effectively as it did with China forty or so years ago. To
buy in, one has to accept that the mess in the Middle East today
threatens America as comprehensively as the Soviets did, and that
restoring relations with Iran would advance American interests. But such
an argument is specious in the extreme.

Obama’s
mishandling of the Syrian crisis, combined with his failure to secure a
status-of-forces agreement with Iraq, led to the rise of ISIS, which
now essentially constitutes a small bandit nation that threatens Iranian
interests far more than American. The Iranians can assist in neutering
ISIS, but will act against the group whether we choose to appease the
mullahs or not. The United States doesn’t “need” Iran as Kaplan argues
-- it’s more the opposite. In
Kaplan’s (and likely Obama’s view) a cooperative Iran will rein in
Sunni extremists western Iraq, and moderate Shia extremists in eastern
Iraq. But it’s even more magical than that in Obamaland. A more
pro-American Shia Iran will balance an increasingly Islamist and
anti-American Sunni Turkey. “After all” Kaplan notes Turkey and Iran
have “offset each other since the Safavid-Ottoman War of the early 17th
Century [sic].” But why is a rapprochement with America a necessary
condition for the Iranians to keep a militant Sunni Turkey at bay, when
they did so for centuries before America even existed, much less had
interest in the region? Answer -- it’s not.

But
the reference to Turkish-Iranian hostility reaches a major issue Kaplan
elides (along with Obama.) That is the nature of the Twelver Shia
regime that controls Iran. Yes, Turkey is an increasingly problematic
and potentially hostile state,
but for now it is a de jure American ally. Not only that, but while
some Sunni regimes (and terror groups) harbor broad anti-Western
political ambitions (e.g., the reestablishment of Ottoman hegemony or a reborn Caliphate) Iran’s Shia regime is explicitly theocratic and apocalyptic.

The Battle of Chaldiran (1514)
was the most famous engagement of the Savavid-Ottoman War. The clash
saw musket-armed Janissaries cut down bow armed Safavid cavalry,
producing a decisive Ottoman victory. It wasn’t that the Safavids were
unaware of gunpowder weapons, but that they considered them unmanly, and
believed their pleated bonnets (one pleat for each of the 12 holy imams
of Shia Islam) would miraculously protect them from Sunni bullets, or
at worst, send them directly to paradise. Four centuries later during
the Iraq-Iran War, Shia imams sent thousands of Iranian teens into Iraqi
minefields with much the same idea.

The effective sine qua non for
a rapprochement with Iran, which both Obama and Kaplan know, is
acquiescing to a nuclear Iran -- regardless of Obama’s mealy-mouthed
appeals to Iranian nuclear restraint. Obama’s appeasement of the regime
has already almost guaranteed a nuclear Iran -- if they are not nuclear capable already.

A
nuclear nation with a theocratic apocalyptic regime is an experiment
without precedent, making comparisons with Nixon’s opening to China even
more obtuse. China is anything but an apocalyptic nation. Indeed, even
China’s dalliance with Communism is really an aberration, as it
defaults to traditional autocracy and mercantilism. Iran on the other
hand, has grown more radical, not less.

Finally,
there is Israel. Kaplan excuses Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish
state with that weak and overused leftist canard -- inevitability. No
matter Obama’s personal predilections, a break with Israel was going to
happen anyway because of “emerging geopolitics… with its vast and
changing undercurrents of culture, geography economics and natural
resource supply chains, and military acquisitions.” Obamaesque nonsense
if ever there was.

A
logical view suggests that Israel, a growing, Western-oriented,
technologically advanced, economically strong, militarily capable
nuclear power, without a dog in the Sunni-Shia fight, is a critical
asset in a troubled region, which could help relieve American military
responsibilities if properly supported, as it did in the Eastern
Mediterranean during the Cold War. Kaplan merely credits Israel with
being a “valuable chess piece.” And as every chess player knows (the
Iranians invented the game) every piece but one is expendable. I doubt
Obama plays -- but sacrificing Israel as part of a phony “strategic
calculation” -- would suit him well.

Appeasing
Iran will not bring stability to the Middle East, or give America
flexibility in East Asia. It is a fool’s errand, or in chess terms, a
gambit that will end in disaster. As Obama telegraphs his moves, the
mullahs await the endgame with glee.

Not only was Mohammed Zahir a terrorist kingpin, but he was also a
drug kingpin and the notebook suggested that his eye was on the United
States of America.

Which
terrorist will Obama set loose next from Gitmo? A better question might
be is there any terrorist he won’t free? Is there an Al Qaeda or
Taliban Jihadist who poses too much of a threat to the United States for
Obama to free with a lot of airline miles and Michelle Obama’s recipe
for arugula fruitcake?

If Obama has a red line when it comes to releasing terrorists, we haven’t seen it yet.

There appears to be no threat that a terrorist can pose and no crime
he has committed too severe to prevent him from getting a plane trip out
of Gitmo at taxpayer expense.

The last releases saw terrorists rated as high risk freed by Obama.
They included fighters with experience on the battlefield and covert
operations. Obama set loose a suicide bomber,
a document forger and a bomb maker who trained other terrorists to make
bombs. Those are exactly the sorts of enemies whose license to Jihad
will cost lives.

But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s latest gift to the Jihad.

When Mohammed Zahir was caught, among his possessions was found a
small sealed can marked, in Russian, “Heavy Water U235 150 Grams.”

According to the classified report, the uranium had been identified
by Zahir “in his memorandum as being intended for the production of an
“atom bomb.”

Zahir was not just another captured Jihadist. He was the Secretary
General of the Taliban’s Intelligence Directorate and was in contact
with top leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. His possessions included a
fax with questions intended for Osama bin Laden and he had been
arrested on suspicion of possessing Stinger missiles.

But that may not have even been the worst of it.

Among the items was a notebook containing references to large sugar
shipments to Washington D.C. Investigators believed that sugar was used
as a code word for heroin. The Black Sea stops mentioned in the notebook
are major hubs for smuggling heroin and for nuclear smuggling as well.

Not only was Mohammed Zahir a terrorist kingpin, but he was also a
drug kingpin and the notebook suggested that his eye was on the United
States of America.

It was no wonder that Mohammad Zahir had been rated as posing a high
risk, but Obama had already freed a number of other high risk Guantanamo
Bay detainees. Yet Zahir was the closest thing to a major nuclear
terrorist in United States custody. Freeing him was wildly irresponsible
even by the standards of a leader who had sacrificed thousands of
Americans in a futile effort to “win” Afghan hearts and minds.

Nor did Obama even bother with the plausible deniability of releasing
him to a South American country, the way he had with his previous batch
of ISIS recruits, or at least to Qatar. Instead Mohammed Zahir went
back directly to the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Obama couldn’t have done more without handing over the blueprints for constructing a nuclear bomb.

And yet it wasn’t surprising that Obama would free Mohammed Zahir. He had already freed Zahir’s old boss,
the Taliban’s Deputy Minister of Intelligence, as well as another
senior Taliban intel official under whom Zahir had used to work. It just
happened to be Zahir’s turn.

If the other Gitmo detainees freed by Obama are deadly, Zahir was
part of an effort to engage in the mass murder of Americans using
weapons of mass destruction. Considering how many Gitmo detainees
returned to terrorism once they were released, it is highly likely that
Zahir will go on doing what he used to do and that American soldiers and
civilians will end up paying the price for Obama’s license to Jihad.

Zahir wasn’t released on his own. Accompanying him back to the
motherland of terror were Khi Ali Gul, who was linked to Al Qaeda’s
Haqqani Network, Shawali Khan, the member of group that merged with Al
Qaeda and Abdul Ghani, who had frequently bragged about his high rank in
the Taliban and had participated in rocket and mine attacks on American
soldiers.

These men were assessed as very dangerous. Like the last batch
released, they’re almost certain to return to the industry of terror.

Even as a $5 million bounty has been put on
the head of Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, a Gitmo terrorist released for rest and
rehabilitation in Saudi Arabia, the same mistakes that led to his
release continue to be made.

Ibrahim al-Rubaysh returned to play a leading role in Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed Zahir and his pals will have an even
shorter trip to get back into the fight. They won’t even have to go
through the charade of being rehabilitated before they return to their
bloody trade.

With the release of the latest batch of Taliban figures, Obama is
helping the Taliban rebuild its organizational structure at the top.
Even while he’s declaring victory over the Taliban, he is helping the
Taliban win.

And in the process he is sending dangerous men back into the fight. Men like Mohammed Zahir.

Mohammed Zahir may not go back to his old tasks of smuggling heroin
to Washington D.C. or trying to assemble materials for an atomic bomb.
Or this top Taliban intelligence official may decide to pick up where he
left off. It’s bad enough that Obama is empowering Iran’s quest for a
nuclear bomb, but now he has also managed to aid the Taliban’s search
for weapons of mass destruction.

Americans no longer expect the man in the White House not to release
terrorists. We no longer expect him not to release dangerous terrorists
who will go on to kill Americans. Now we also know that it’s useless to
expect him not to release terrorists caught trying to assemble materials
for a nuclear bomb.

We’ve tried to grade Obama on a curve when it comes to national security, but the curve just got nuked.

The very lowest possible expectation we can have of Obama is that he
won’t release a nuclear terrorist. And even this lowest of all possible
expectations proved too much for him to live up to.

Which terrorists will Obama release next? The answer appears to be all of them.

Obama had sought to take Osama alive so he could receive a trial in
civilian court. The SEALS put a stop to that plan and to Osama, but if
they hadn’t, then next week we might be seeing Osama bin Laden boarding a
plane to Qatar or Afghanistan with a can of uranium tucked under one
arm.

And the more we find out who Gruber really is, the more odious he appears. As Howley reported
earlier this month, referring to a January 2012 San Francisco podcast
appearance the professor made, “Infamous Obamacare architect Jonathan
Gruber told people not to read Obamacare ... and said he designed it by
‘throwing stuff at the wall’ in one of his most characteristic public
speeches.

ObamaCare is technically known as the Affordable Care Act, but it has
now been revealed that legislation architect Jonathan Gruber admitted
in 2009 that the bill would be anything but affordable. In fact, he said
it lacked cost controls and that, inevitably, certain individuals would
have to be denied care — all while Barack Obama was telling voters just
the opposite.

Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor,
instantly became one of America’s most disliked elitists early last
month when a 2013 video clip was uncovered in which he said that “a lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” had enabled ObamaCare to pass. Now an October 2009 policy brief, presented by the Daily Caller, provides more details of the deception. As the website’s Patrick Howley writes, by Oct. 2009:

“The problem is it starts to go hand in
hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not
affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” Gruber admitted in an
October 2, 2009 lecture, the transcript of which comprised the policy
brief.

The MIT professor then tacitly acknowledged that what critics were
saying — that ObamaCare was just an unworkable first step toward more
complete government control of healthcare — was correct, despite its
supporters’ protestations to the contrary. As Gruber also stated:

So what’s different this time? Why are we
closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls
in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good!
Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that
we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable
way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.

And in keeping with the economic principle that price caps always lead to shortages (which will translate into rationing in this case), Gruber also acknowledged in his brief:

The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want.... It’s about telling patients, “That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.”

... There’s no reason the American health
care system can’t be, “You can have whatever you want, you just have to
pay for it.” That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say
everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV,
you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level
where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above
that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy
a higher level of coverage.”

And Gruber and his socialized medicine bills have a history of
deception. The professor, whose bio informs that he was “a key architect
of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort,” also stated in his
brief, “How specific should this [ObamaCare] legislation be? In
Massachusetts our legislation was deliberately quite vague. It said
things like, ‘We should have a mandate if it’s affordable but we’re not
going to define affordable. We’re going to have subsidies but we’re not
going to specify what they are. There should be a minimum benefit
package but we’re not going to tell you what it is.’”

And the more we find out who Gruber really is, the more odious he appears. As Howley reported
earlier this month, referring to a January 2012 San Francisco podcast
appearance the professor made, “Infamous Obamacare architect Jonathan
Gruber told people not to read Obamacare ... and said he designed it by
‘throwing stuff at the wall’ in one of his most characteristic public
speeches. In between taking personal shots at conservatives, he actually
thanked congressional Democrats for voting against their constituents.”
Gruber also outlined Obama’s deception in that podcast, saying:

I wish that President Obama could have
stood up and said, ‘You know, I don’t know if this bill is going to
control costs. It might, it might not. We’re doing our best. But let me
tell you what it’s going to do....

If he could make that speech? Instead, he
says “I’m going to pass a bill that will lower your health care costs.”
That sells. Now, I wish the world was different. I wish people cared
about the 50 million uninsured in America.... But, you know, they don’t.
And I think, once again, I’m amazed politically that we got this bill
through.

And that getting a bill through — any bill — was the priority
explains what at the time seemed inexplicable: Nancy Pelosi’s infamous
March 2010 comment,
“[W]e have to pass the [ObamaCare] bill so you can find out what is in
it.” It didn’t matter what was in it and how unworkable it was as long
as that first step toward government-controlled healthcare was taken. As
Gruber also admitted in the podcast:

Even if we knew how to control
health care costs, we couldn’t do it politically. So what do you do?
You’re President Obama and the Congress, you promised you’re going to
control health care costs.... Your pollsters have told you that the
American public doesn’t actually care about insurance coverage; all they
care about is health care cost.... What do you do? Well, you do what I
like to think of as sort of a “spaghetti approach.” Throw a bunch of
stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

They did, and now Americans are stuck with a government boondoggle and the bills.

As for rationing, Gruber may be well situated, along with being well
disposed, to take on that role. His bio also tells us that in 2006 he
“became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main
implementing body for that [Massachusetts healthcare law] effort.” And
some may wonder if, like left-wing “bioethicist” Ezekiel Emanuel,
he wants to die at 75 and thinks others should as well or if, when the
time comes, he will cling to life — and to every life-extending
procedure available to the connected. And it is hard to imagine that the
Gruberesque Death Panels won’t be occupied by those equality-preaching
elitists who, somehow, always end up being more equal than others.Selwyn DukeSource: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19818-obama-advisor-gruber-in-2009-obamacare-unaffordable-rationing-a-k-a-death-panels-inevitable Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

There
is an antidote to this mind poison our children are being fed. I have
had opportunities to teach American history the way I learned it. It is
easy and natural to teach children the story of America in a way that
fills them with pride.

If
you look at the “peaceful protestors” talking part in the recent
demonstrations across America, what do you see? Young people who are
products of the public school system. If you listen to the “peaceful
protestors” what do you hear? Lies about America that were “taught” in
the public schools. As if we need another reason to be cynical regarding
Common Core, it continues the lies the built Ferguson. There is no
doubt that our schools are places where a leftist agenda is being pushed
but it gets even more sinister. Are we deliberately encouraging these
protests and the resulting civil unrest?

The
unrest and the “change” we are seeing in the attitudes of the young is
the result of several different factors, one being what is taught in the
public schools. For example, History used to teach civics and love of
country. Nowadays, history isn’t even considered an important subject.
History teachers and the history curriculum do not show America
positively. Children used to learn about the history of America in a way
that instilled pride. These children grew up to build America, the most
desirable country ever to exist. Instead of continuing the lessons
which made America the envy of the world, we are presenting a picture of
America that causes our children to question its’ goodness.

As
a public school teacher, I have noticed the same broken record played
over and over. I remember watching a movie about Emmet Till with a
class of 11 year olds. The movie shows Till, an innocent, black 14 year
old, who whistled at a white woman in Mississippi in the 1950s. As
punishment, he died at the hands of white men in a gruesome way. The
school movie spared no horrific detail. The white cops were vile. Their
disdain for Emmet and his family was revolting. The screen showed us the
actual photo taken at Emmet’s wake, of his face swollen from being
beaten and left in the river for days, for far too long. The all-white
jury took an hour to come back with a “not guilty” verdict. The
murderers laughed and celebrated after the verdict was read. When the
movie was over, my class of mostly black students wanted to “kill white
people” over the sad injustice. No doubt this was the desired reaction.

For
a long time, I debated whether I should show this movie, even during
black history month. I did not understand the point in enraging these
kids with this one horrific event without also explaining that his death
sparked a movement and angered whites throughout the country as well.
Not to mention that we can find examples of horrific crimes committed by
blacks against whites where justice was not served.

Since
February is also presidents’ month I decided to show a movie about
Thomas Jefferson. While all my students knew Emmet Till by fifth grade,
none knew Jefferson. I got a movie from the school library. I was
sharing with the class some wonderful things about Jefferson, some of
his famous quotes and why he is my favorite president. The kids were
interested, receptive, and impressed. The movie was going well until….
Slaves built Monticello. A black boy turned to me and asked if Jefferson
owned slaves.

Over
and over we see the same pictures in the schools. Beginning in
kindergarten, we see hundreds of Africans chained together on slave
ships and being forced to America, many of them dying miserably during
the voyage. We aren’t told they were sold by other Africans. There are
many more examples. Even if the worst is true, it’s at the point where I
wonder what the point is. I know many black teachers I work with will
say that these horrific events occurred and that these things need to be
taught. OK. Are we all happy with the results? Are we portraying
America fairly? Or are we (obviously) trying to make a political point?

Michael
Brown is not Emmet Till. Today’s cops are not the cops of the 1950s.
The grand juries of today are not the grand juries of 1950. Yet truth
doesn’t matter. To these (black and guilt-ridden white) kids, now is the
time to avenge these acts. They are being encouraged by our political
leaders, teachers, athletes, celebrities, and the media. None of this is
good for any kid, black or white. What good is tearing down and the
country that they call home and dividing people?

There
is an antidote to this mind poison our children are being fed. I have
had opportunities to teach American history the way I learned it. It is
easy and natural to teach children the story of America in a way that
fills them with pride. I know this because I’ve done it. I’ve had
classrooms children from every background. By June they were proud to
call themselves American and crying when listening to the “Star Spangled
Banner”. But I am one teacher in a school district with 1.1 million
kids. Besides, Common Core tells me exactly what to teach. My students
are tested on exactly what the experts want them to know. I am rated on
whether they have “learned” the information that the creators of Common
Core have deemed is a proper education.

There
is no doubt that the “peaceful protestors” feel justified and
empowered. They are true believers and have been programmed from an
early age (Let’s get them even earlier with universal pre-K). Where we
will be as a country if we allow the progressives to have full control
and even more time to teach this hate for America via Common Core? Do we
want a United States of America? These things have been put into motion
and we are seeing the results. What’s it going to take for people to
connect the dots?

Mary
Anne Marcella is a parent and public school teacher who wants the best
for her children and her students. She resides in New Canaan, CT with
her family. Her views are her own and do not necessarily reflect the
views of others in the education field. maryannem@optonline.net or Twitter MaryAnne@maryannemercog

Unfortunately, Turkey is neither
democratic nor stable -- nor developed. The world's most credible
pro-democracy institutions list Turkey in their democracy indices as
either "not free" or a "country with major democratic deficit."Sadly, this is how democracy has evolved in Turkey.

In the heat of August 1980, Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the
now-defunct National Salvation Party and founding father of political
Islam in Turkey, published two articles, "Jerusalem and Zionism," and
"Anarchy and Zionism." In the latter, he likened Zionism to an "octopus
with numberless arms." Some of those arms were "communism, capitalism,
freemasonry and racism."

Before that, in much of the 1970s, Turkey had been captured by
political violence. It had killed on average a dozen people each day in
clashes mainly between ultra left- and ultra right-wing militants.

The sole source of anarchy and chaos in Turkey, Erbakan then wrote, was Zionism.

Shortly after the publication of Erbakan's articles, on Sept. 6,
1980, his party organized the infamous "Jerusalem meeting" in the
central Anatolian city of Konya, an Islamist stronghold to this day.
Thousands, including children, shouted "Death to the Jew" and marched through the city. Six days after the
demonstration, the military staged a coup d'état. The generals not only
wanted to crush warring extremists, but also religious fundamentalists.

Little has changed in Konya's political demographics since the 1980
coup. It still boasts being the center of Turkish political Islam even
though, ironically, the city's name is a Turkish distortion of its
original medieval Greek name "Ikonion." This August, three-quarters of
residents of Konya voted for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who became the
president of the country, with 51.5% of the nationwide vote. Like most
of Turkey's cabinet ministers and ruling MPs, Erdogan comes from the
ranks of Erbakan's school of political Islam.

But these days Konya is even more loudly proud of one of "its own
sons." Former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Erdogan's choice, was
elected party leader and prime minister this summer.

Last weekend, Davutoglu gathered a regional party congress in his
native Konya, where enthusiastic locals and party loyalists called him
"a true grandson of the Ottomans."

The party congress looked like any other congress of the ruling
Justice and Development party [AKP]: a fawning crowd, cheering, singing
and shouting pro-Davutoglu (and pro-Erdogan) slogans, and waving Turkish
and Palestinian flags. But there was more.

Davutoglu's guest of honor at the party congress in Konya was Khaled
Mashaal, head of Hamas's political bureau and the darling of Messrs
Erdogan and Davutoglu -- a feeling that is apparently not unrequited.

Mashaal, who lives in exile in Qatar, shyly boasting an opulent life
style, voiced his hopes that, together with the Turkish leaders, that
they would "liberate Palestine and Jerusalem."

"A democratic, stable and developed Turkey," he said, "is a source of
power for all Muslims. [A] strong Turkey means a strong Jerusalem, a
strong Palestine."

Unfortunately, Turkey is neither democratic, nor stable -- nor
developed. The world's most credible pro-democracy institutions, most
notably Freedom House, list Turkey in their democracy indices as either a
"not free" or a "country with major democratic deficit."

The country is scene to constant political bickering, and neighbors,
next to Syria and Iraq, one of the world's most unstable regions. Its
per capita income is a mere $10,000.

In his speech, Davutoglu accused Israel of "attempts to reduce the
Islamic character of Jerusalem," and repeated that Turkey and Palestine
have a common stance (against Israel). He also declared a new mission
for Turkey: the self-declared guardian of Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Turkey will do whatever needs to be done to protect Jerusalem and
al-Aqsa Mosque," he said. More thundering applause, more Palestinian
flags waving and more "Down with Israels."

Whenever there is a visiting foreign dignitary, a head of state or a
prime minister, Davutoglu would usually meet with his guest bilaterally
for an hour or two. In Konya, his tête-à-tête with Mashaal lasted for
four and a half hours -- a span not surprising, given the lucrative
engagement with "all things Palestinian." Playing the champion of the
"Palestinian cause" has traditionally been a smart vote-catcher in the
Turkish lands, especially in Konya.

Thirty-four years ago, the people of Konya had to take to the streets
to shout "Death to the Jew," wave Palestinian flags and chant all
possible Quranic slogans -- and clash with the military for doing it.
Today, they enjoy the Islamist ritual at the regional congress of the
country's ruling party, with "a son of their city" running the show from
the seat of the prime minister.

Thirty-four years ago, their hearts and minds were united with their
Palestinian brothers, but a public "Jerusalem meeting" could earn them a
jail sentence. Today, failing to stand by the "Palestinian cause" could
earn someone a jail sentence, if not a good public beating. Sadly, this
is how democracy has evolved in Turkey.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

In
summary: the year 2014 was a challenging one for Israel, Europe and the
rest of the world. These challenges will only get bigger, crises
deepen, disputes spread, Iran will obtain nuclear arms, ISIS will grow,
America will not have the first place it held until four years ago and
Europe will continue sinking under waves of Islamic immigration that are
turning European culture into something that is a far cry from liberal
values, openness, modernity and democracy.

2014 was a year in which we witnessed the continued deterioration of
the modern Arab state, while in contrast, two older poitical frameworks
rose in popularity.

Syria is undergoing a long and bloody process
of disintegration. Assad controls about a quarter of the country,
including Damascus, part of Haleb in the north, the coastal strip and
the Ansari mountains where the Allawites, his non-Muslum brothers, are
to be found. Two new frameworks arose on the ruins of Syria: an
independent Kurdish area in the northeast and Islamic State on about 30%
of Syrian land. The Kurds feel a strong connection to their Iraqi
brothers and have no intentions of being under Arab domination ever
again.

Iraq's future is unclear: on the one hand, a somewhat
stabilized political system has succeeded in switching the prime
minister without too much unrest, but on the other hand, the country has
not been able to stop the Islamic State jihadists from conquering a
third of its territory, including Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq
and the main center of its oil industry. Islamic State threatens
Baghdad from the advanced positions it has overrun in the besieged
city's suburbs, in the town of Ramadi. Several of the regions in Iraq
declared autonomy in September in response to the dysfunctional central
government. If this trend continues, Iraq is liable to become a
federation of autonomous units, and that may turn out to be a harbinger
of what the future holds for other countries in the middle east.

Yemen
is paralyzed by a regime infected with tribalism and by two armed and
anti-establishment entities that are tearing the country apart: Sunni al
Qaeda and Shiite Khuts who conquered the capital in December and
succeeded in dictating their conditions to the country. Iran is arming
and financing them, getting closer to having dangerous influence on the
Bab el Mandeb Straits, the southern passageway for international
shipping on its way from eastern Asia through the Indian Ocean to the
Red Sea, Suez Canal, the Mediterranean and Europe.

Libya
continues to sink into the mire of blood, fire and tears. In the last
four years, years that began with high hopes for an "Arab Spring", more
than 100,000 people have been killed in the country, most of them in
struggles, battles and disputes among tribal and familial militias, with
oil acting as the fuel that lights the bonfire of violence. This past
year there was evidence of a split on geographic lines, with two
coalitions beginning to coalesce: one in Tripoli, in the west of the
country, and the other in Benghazi, in the east. The lack of a
functioning central government opens the door for violent Islamic
organizations, some connected to al Qaeda and some to Islamic State, to
stake out their own enclaves.

Islamic
state is the biggest and most significant new phenomenon that occurred
in the Middle East in 2014. Although the organization was founded ten
years ago as the al Qaeda of Aram Naharaim (Mesopotamia), today it is
challenging not only al Qaeda but also the Middle East and the entire
world. Everyone can see that Islamic Stae presents a direct threat to
national order by threatening to conquer other countries and create
alternative governments, as well as by serving as the source for
jihadist ideas that use media networks to spread the Jihad war
throughout the world.

During
the first half of 2014 Islamic State (ISIS) succeeded in conquering a
third of both Iraq and Syria, sparsely populated but oil rich areas.
Turkey helps Islamic State by exporting the oil it produces to Europe,
also providing logistic aid. Qatar helped Islamic State until it was
forced to stop doing so in December 2014. Islamic States' achievements
are attributable to its ability to spread fear all around itself using
horrific videos of beheadings, merciless shootings and the starving to
death of tens of thousands of heretics – such as the Yazidi.

Islamic
State absorbs many of the Sunnis in conquered regions of Syria and Iraq
into the ranks of its fighting forces, while thousands of volunteers
from all over the world – Muslims and prospective converts – join as
well. Jihadists even come from Western countries, planning to fight the
west and force it to follow Islam. The Islamic State's ruler has adopted
the name Abu Bakr al Bahghdadi and appointed himself "Caliph", ninety
years after the Caliphate was abolished by Attaturk. Islamic State sees
itself as an alternative to all the political agreements forced on the
Islamic world by colonialist, heretic nations. ISIS erases borders set
up by Britain and France, it does not accept international law which it
replaces by the most extreme form of Sharia law: beheads heretics, flogs
sinners, sells slaves in the open market and chops off the hands of
thieves.

New
volunteers join ISIS daily, and it intends to be here forever while
directly threatening the countries around it – Jordan, Lebanon and Iran.
This is why Iran is arming and supplying the Kurdish militia, the
Peshmarga, in hopes the militia will succeed in dealing with the ISIS
threat. Not a few nations, both Arab and European, have established an
airborne force to deal with ISIS from the air, but it is a mistake to
think that airstrikes can destroy a country that is three times the size
of Israel. Only infantry, conquering an area and searching house to
house, basement to basement and storeroom to storeroom, can put ISIS in
its place.

Egypt
succeeded in establishing el Sisi's government despite the public
disapproval of the US, which for a long time after Morsi was deposed in
2013 saw him as remaining the legitimate and lawful president. Egyptian
steadfastness, supported economically and politically by the Saudis and
United Emirates, succeeded in standing up to the Americans despite
Qatar's open endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Jihad and
ISIS.

That
same Egyptian single mindedness, joined by Saudi Arabia and the United
Emirates, also succeeded in forcing Qatar to submit to their agenda and
cease its support of terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS and to stop
using the al Jazeera media network as a propaganda tool for the Muslim
Brotherhood and the terror organizations they created. Will Qatar
continue obeying Saudi dictates? Time will tell. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and
the Emirates will have to keep their eyes open, especially behind the
scenes.

Saudi
Arabia also succeeded in inflicting much damage on Iran by producing
more oil than it normally would, thereby lowering the price on the world
market. The Saudis went it alone once they saw the West bowing to
Iranian intransigence and lightening the economic sanctions imposed on
the nuclear-bomb-starved Ayatollah state. The coming months may prove
once more that Saudi singlemindedness is more effective than America's
way of doing things.

Tunisia
is the only spot in the Arab world where there is some hope. This is
the country where the "Arab Spring" began four years ago and it went
through a period of trial and error, checked out political Islam and
returned to its liberal, modern and secularist way of life. Ths country
has proved that a nation can deal with inner conflicts in legitimate
ways, without violence (unlike Syria) without bloodshed (unlike Libya)
without revolutions that spawn the rule of dictators (unlike Egypt).
However, Tunisia must deal immediately and decisively with the Jihadis
groups that have settled in its southern region and receive fighters,
arms and money from neighboring Libya and Algeria.

The
Palestinians are turning to the international stage, trying with all
their might to get a recognized state. The Arab world, distracted by
problems such as ISIS, has neither the time or the patience to deal with
the Palestinian issue, leading the PA to turn to the world for
recognition. European politicians are falling over themselves to
recognize a Palestinian state so as to please Muslim voters. Israel may
find itself facing a Palestinian state – which will without doubt become
a Hamas state – just because some unemployment-frightened European
politicians vote for establishing that state on the hills of Judea and
Samaria, the birthplace of the Jewish people.

The
world is still impressed by the existence of a Palestinian nation,
created just recently, partly as a result of the idea of some
holier-than-thou Israelis. Jerusalem is considered part of the
Palestinian state for one reason only – so as to uproot the holy city
from the Jewish entity, knowing full well that without Jerusalem, the
entire state will cease to exist. The world must awaken, understand the
problem and realize that if Israel falls to Islam, Europe will be next -
and not much later.

In
summary: the year 2014 was a challenging one for Israel, Europe and the
rest of the world. These challenges will only get bigger, crises
deepen, disputes spread, Iran will obtain nuclear arms, ISIS will grow,
America will not have the first place it held until four years ago and
Europe will continue sinking under waves of Islamic immigration that are
turning European culture into something that is a far cry from liberal
values, openness, modernity and democracy.

The
challenges facing the state of Israel are becoming more and more
complex. Syria's demise has lessened the threat on Israel, but other
threats are on the horizon: Iran and ISIS gaining strength on the one
side, Europe and America getting weaker and weaker on the other.

The soon to be elected Israeli leadership will have to give its attention to all of them.Dr. Mordechai KedarSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16236#.VKUT9XuzchQ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.